Subject: Re: Long Descriptions - Indexes
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 08:24:00 -0700 (PDT)

Fine - I will follow up with Jennifer and Torrey before convening with the 
legal team at 11 am (5 UK). 

m

David Forster
15/09/99 09:50
To: Mark - ECT Legal Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Dilworth/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: Long Descriptions - Indexes  

Thanks for your recent emails. My response to various issues raised:

Before Torrey Moorer and Jennifer deBloisBlac Denney met with the confirms 
people, I said:

1) The GTC + Long Description should cover all of the elements necessary to 
form an unambiguous contract. The paper confirmation should just be a written 
record of what has already been agreed and should not introduce any new 
concepts.

2) The Long Descriptions should cover everything which a trader would (both 
explicitly and implicitly) discuss over the telephone.

At this point, I have received all of Torrey and Jennifer's comments and they 
have been incorporated. I have also received comments from Andy Thomas, which 
he says incorporates everything which he received. Therefore, all feedback 
which was given to any of the above three individuals should now be reflected 
in the spreadsheet and the database.

In some cases, certain items of feedback were ignored because they were 
incorrect - e.g. the addition of a "price" field to the PAI list.  There were 
also some cases when multiple requests to language changes occurred to a 
single data item, or certain items of feedback were superceded by others. If 
someone says that they provided feedback which you believe is valid for 
inclusion and which has not been incorporated, please let me know the details 
of the change and who the request was passed to.

Thanks,

Dave

To: David Forster/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Long Descriptions - Indexes

Dave:

One item that was left open after my meeting with Mark D. this morning was 
what the Index should look like and how much input we have had from the 
confirm desk.  My inclination was that the index should be the same language 
that we currently use in the confirmation on the theory that the GTC taken 
together with the long description should result in a complete, unambiguous 
contract.  Mark felt that the index should provide a more complete 
description than the short description abbreviation but that the full legal 
text could wait for the paper confirm.

Given Mark's view as to how this field should be dealt with, it may be that 
the confirm desk has in fact looked at all of these and said they look fine 
as far as they go and has not attempted to correct them with the full legal 
language.

Mark said he would be contacting you himself but I thought it might make 
sense to give you my version as well.

What are your thoughts?  If you'd like to discuss, I will be in by 9:00 
tomorrow but have a meeting at 10 and then the meeting with all of the 
lawyers and Mark to discuss the further long description review at 11.  

Mark